Active Member

Question for you guys and girls... If you're setting your crossovers high for these (150Hz +) and the sub you have does not go that high then do you loose all the frequency in between say the max for your sub and this speaker?

Well-known Member

Question for you guys and girls... If you're setting your crossovers high for these (150Hz +) and the sub you have does not go that high then do you loose all the frequency in between say the max for your sub and this speaker?

Click to expand...

It should be capable of going much higher (T9) if you aren`t using your subwoofers internal crossover. -> using the low level connection with RCA cable, low freq knob to highest hz/LFE. So your avr would do the bass management, this way it should be able to reach higher than 120hz. I asked this same question many years ago from BK which are very similar designs to REL, and that was the answer basically. Also i have data from BK XLS200/Monolith and when bypassed then it shows freq response all the way to 200hz. You can ask about this from REL if you want to be 100% sure.

Active Member

It should be capable of going much higher (T9) if you aren`t using your subwoofers internal crossover. -> using the low level connection with RCA cable, low freq knob to highest hz/LFE. So your avr would do the bass management, this way it should be able to reach higher than 120hz. I asked this same question many years ago from BK which are very similar designs to REL, and that was the answer basically. Also i have data from BK XLS200/Monolith and when bypassed then it shows freq response all the way to 200hz. You can ask about this from REL if you want to be 100% sure.

Click to expand...

Sounds good thanks for that. That is how mine is setup currently (not an issue with my other speakers) but my bedroom setup soon to be installed might need to use a higher crossover.

Active Member

Hi all, at the risk of talking into the void here on an older thread ... just wondering if anybody has played around with the angle on these? I did a test of the throw angle (XA's sitting flat on top of floorstander circa 890mm high) with a laser measure and on my ceiling the centrepoint of the projection hits the ceiling roughly 1.2m away from the floorstander which would suggest best seating position roughly 2.4m away. MLP is 4m away! For that reason I've always had them angled forwards to throw further but playing around with it the other day with a Dolby demo disc I reigned that back in and found it even better

Standard Member

Dolby Atmos works by moving objects around in a three dimensional space, so ideally the more speakers (7.1.4), the more accurate the positioning of those objects. However if you only have nine channels available then based on my testing and that of THX, the best alternative is 7.1.2 with the overhead speakers more central. The reason is that the the addition two back speakers creates a cohesive circle that enables sounds to move around you, whilst the two overhead speakers deliver the third dimension of height. I think people often say they prefer 5.1.4 because they think that since they're installing an Atmos system they want the full four speakers overhead but I find there can be a hole in the rear soundstage without the two back speakers, whilst the difference between two or four overhead speakers is less noticeable.

Click to expand...

That is precisely why if you have a 5.1 setup in general, you place the "surround" speakers 'BEHIND' your MLP (~100-110 degrees) rather than to the sides of you (~85-105 degrees). This enables a compromise that gives both "side" and "rear" effects. The rear effects may not be as deep as dedicated rears (which can be placed considerably further behind you; e.g. mine are about 10 feet behind my side surrounds with a 3 row setup), but you do get sounds behind you. Even in my dedicated 9.1.6 setup, I still place the side surrounds at about 110 degrees so that material played in true 5.1 or say Auro-3D with surround heights enabled produce imaging behind the front row (I have matrixed front wides that can counter-balance this if desired to a phantom near 90 degree position), but then I also have extracted top middle and surround height + rear height combinations via a Monoprice switchbox so I've heard a lot of different combinations and speaker locations (real or phantom). While most are enhancements, side surrounds placed to the rear are a virtual must for a 5.1 based setup to maintain any semblance of a full surround field.

In this case, I believe 5.1.4 to be superior to 7.1.2 for a single row home theater using those guidelines (most overhead panning is lost entirely with 7.1.2 while rear effects are still simulated if the surrounds are at 110 degrees). With multiple rows, I agree that 7.1.2 is superior overall for all listeners considered as long as the overheads are in the top middle location. Obviously, 7.1.4 (or higher) is preferable to either one.

If the total length of the room breaches ~120 degrees separation or thereabouts, six overheads are probably going to be needed to assure smooth panning across the greater overhead distance (e.g. my room is 24 feet long with 3 rows of seats so to encompass all three locations AND still have smooth phantom panning across the ceiling, I need 6 overheads to cover the entire ceiling and to use the front/rear height locations compatible with Auro-3D. Given the DTS 11-channel limitation that still exists, a Pro Logic based extraction was preferable to something like the Denon 8500H which cannot do 7.1.6 with DTS:X for that reason (forcing you to choose either 5.1.6 or 7.1.4 maximum for that format). Pro Logic extraction gets around that limitation (as would multiple combined daisy-chained AVRs such as an Denon 8500 + a Marantz 7010 which can achieve a true 9.1.6 configuration at a fraction of the cost of something like a Trinnov Altitude 32.